Direct Instruction Wiki
Introduction The first roots of Direct Instruction goes back all the way to 1967, when the government of the USA introduced Project Follow Through. Project Follow Through was an experiment to provide educational services to preschoolers which have a disadvantage. There were seventeen different teaching methods tested, where Direct Instruction won hands down. Project Follow Through was a result of the No Child Left Behind act which states that only scientifically founded teaching methods were allow to get subsidies. Thus marking a start of the many researches done in order to improve teaching methods (Ayres, 2007) 17 different teaching models were tested, on 79000 children in low income areas for 20 years. This was the largest education studies ever done. The Direct Instruction model is a model which explicitly states the instructions for the teacher. There is no pre-work before each lesson for the teacher and a signal (such as a tap with a pen on the book) indicates that the children have to answer. An example of Direct Instruction in classrooms: http://youtu.be/3cwODCQ9BnU The main critique given on the method is that it is “teacher proof”, the teacher has no input themselves making them feel roboticAyres, Ian. Super crunchers: Why thinking-by-numbers is the new way to be smart. Random House LLC, 2007.. Another critique is that there is no creative development, allthought there is evidence that children can perform creative thinking. There are more versions of Direct Instruction but the main focus lays on Arithmetic and Reading. Also known as DISTARNational Institute for Direct Instruction (2014). Retrieved on 11-26-2014 from http://www.nifdi.org/ (Direct Instruction System for Teaching Arithmetic and Reading), developed by Engelmann and Becker. __TOC__ The Main Question Direct Instruction was introduced as a scientific method for teaching preschoolers. The first question was: Which teaching method improves performance for preschoolers with a disadvantage? '' Over time the question changed, it can be implemented for students of other ages making the main question more general: ''What is the best performing teaching method? Why? The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) which was part of War on poverty by President Lyndon, it was the most far-reaching federal legislation affecting education.Office of superintendent of public instruction (2014). Elementary and Secundary Education Act (ESEA). Retrieved on 11-26-2014 from http://www.k12.wa.us/esea ESEA states that only scientific based methods will get subsidies. This was the start of Project Follow Through which an experiment was to help disadvantaged children in elementary schools. This was the start of the intensive researches done on education. The ESEA is now known as the No Child Left Behind Act. Direct Instruction Papers In this part we will discuss papers about Direct Instruction. 'Hattie, J.' Hattie performs a meta-analysis. This means that all relevant literature is combined to get overall results. Hattie combines 52,637 studies and provides 146,142 effect sizes. The studies are based on many millions of students (Hattie, 2009)Hattie, J. with''Visible Learning; a synthesis of over 800 meta-analysis relating to achievement''(London; Routledge, 2009).. Data of different school stages are combined. The meta-analysis uses the effect-size the measure the effectiveness of a method in teaching. Hattie (2009) identifies everything above an effect-size (d) of 0.4 as a desirable effect. 0.4 is the mean effect-size of all the studies. This can be seen in figure 1. Hattie (2009) states that although some methods might have an effect-size below 0.4, this does not mean that they are not effective. They might be effective for some measures, but not for others. It could also be that they are not used in the right way, or not used for the right children. The focus of his book is however on: how do we take those methods that work? There are so many, we can't use them all. So which work and which do not? There are many that work, but which work best? To structure this question Hattie (2009) indicates the effects that do not work (reverse effects), the ones that have a too low effect, and the ones that have an effect above average. This can be seen in figure 2Atherton J. S. (2013)Learning and Teaching; What works bestUK retrieved 21 November 2014 fromhttp://www.learningandteaching.info/teaching/what_works.htm#Directinstruction. To assess Direct Instruction, Hattie (2009) uses 304 relevant studies.The effect size of direct instruction in this meta-analysis is 0.59. This is an effect size of above 0.4. It does need to be said that direct instruction is only at rank 25. There are thus many more effects that have a higher effect-size. Some of these include: micro-teaching, classroom behavioral and feedback. The effects of rank 1-130 can be visited on http://www.treasury.govt.nz/publications/media-speeches/guestlectures/pdfs/tgls-hattie.pdf White, S. White (2005)White, S. (2005). Education that works in the Milwaukee Public Schools: The benefits from Phonics and Direct Instruction. Policy Research Institute Report, 18. has examined the performance of DI and none-DI students in Milwaukee public schools. White (2005) finds results that show that DI has positive effects. The effects are modest, so he says, because the groups of DI students and none-DI students are often not identical. DI students are often poorer or have learning deficiencies. None the less DI students do on average better than none DI-students that have more advantages. DI provides benefits for all income groups, but it provides more benefits for the poorer students, especially when they learn through the DI method for a longer period of time (5 years). White (2005) promotes more use of DI in schools, especially for children with learning deficiency. It is too bad White did not use the effect-size used in the other studies. This makes it impossible to compare results. 'Borman, H.' Borman Hewes, Overman and Brown (2003)Borman, G.D., Hewes, G.M., Overman, L.T. and Brown, S. (2003). Comprehensive school reform and achievement: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 73, 125-230. did a research to school reform and achievement. This was also a meta-analysis. They combined 29 studies. They looked at different teaching methods like Direct Instruction, School Development Program and Success for All. In general Direct Instruction had the highest average effect-size, namely somewhere between (depending on what kind of studies they used) d=0.15-0.21. Compared to 0.05-0.15 for School Development Program and 0.08-0.18 for Success for All. There were many other methods tested, but the authors say themselves that the evidence is not as strong as for DI and the other two methods, because there was less data available. Some methods have only 1 or 2 observations available. Schweinhart, L. L. The authors studySchweinhart, L. L., Weikart, D. P., Larner, M.B. (1986). Consequences of three preschool curriculum models through age 15. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 1, 15-45. the effects of three education methods on three groups of 18 youth: High/Scope model, Distar (DI) model and a model in the nursery school tradition. The students who follows these programs where interviewed at age 15 and the results show that their IQ rose dramatically. The authors conclude that all these programs helped the students perform better. However they found a negative impact of the Distar model on delinquency and social behavior. The students who attended the Distar model showed twice as many delinquent acts and five times more acts of poverty violence. The Distar group also showed poorer relations with their families, less participation in sport, fewer job appointments and less reaching out to other for personal problems. The authors say themselves that the research was done on a small sample group and are not definitive. The Distar group showed the highest IQ increase. The authors say in their results that Distar showed the only statistical significant result on IQ increase. The difference between the programs and their results on IQ were not statistically significant. The Adult Performance Level Survey showed poor performance of the Distar group. This test is about solving real-life problems and the ability to cope with the cognitive demands of adult life. Two indicators were approaching statistically significant results for DI, namely occupational knowledge and writing. The students from the Distar groups further more performed more delinquency acts. 'Klahr, D.' The authorsKlahr, D., Nigam, M. (2004). The equivalence of in early science instruction: effects of direct instruction and discovery learning. Psychological Science, 15, 661-667. performed a study with 112 third-and fourth grade students. They measured the relative performance of discovery learning and direct instruction at two points in the learning process: during the initial acquisition of the basic cognitive object and during the subsequent transfer and application of the basic skill. This was done by using scientific posters. They found that more children learned from direct instruction than from discovery learning. Also they found that when asked to make broader scientific judgments, the children who learned about experimental design through direct instruction performed as well as children who discovered the method on their own. The authors say their findings challenge the presumed superiority of using discovery learning to teach children basic scientific skills. The results show that many more children taught with direct instruction became masters in the poster-making compared to those taught with discovery learning. The results of the masters and none master students were somewhat higher for those who were taught with discovery learning, compared to those who were taught with direct instruction. This can be seen in figure 4. The authors say the higher grades for those learned with discovery learning were marginally higher and wonder how important this is. 'Dean, D. Jr.' The articleDean, D. Jr., Kuhn, D. (2006). Direct instruction vs. Discovery: the long view. Teachers College, 91, 384-397. is a response the article of Klahr and Nigam. They use the same setup and the same age group, but this research looks at the results over a longer period of time and over different equivalent tasks. They used three groups of 15 fourth-grade students. One group engaged in work on 12 session in 10 weeks working on problems that required the control-of-variables strategy for effective solution. Another group engaged in the same activity, preceding by a session involving direct instruction on the control-of-variables strategy. The third group received only the initial direct instruction without sub-sequence engagement and practice. The authors say that direct instruction was neither a necessary or sufficient factor for robust acquisition or performance over time. The authors conclude that for DI to be successful there has to be regular practice (PR). But only regular practice seems to perform quite well on the long run. This can be seen in figure 5. Stockard, J. The articleStockard, J. (2010). Promoting Reading Achievement and Countering the‘‘Fourth-Grade Slump’’: The Impact of Direct Instruction on Reading Achievement in Fifth Grade. Journal of education for Students Places at Risk, 15, 218-240. examines the effect of Direct instruction, Open Court or a mixture of reading curricula on student achievement. The group started very large (17.000 students), but many students leaving school, the end group consisted of 4.572 students. As a side note, students left schools over all groups (DI, OC and mixture), but DI students were somewhat less likely to leave school. 30% of the students stayed in the same school, compared to 26% of the other students. Results indicate that students in schools using DI had significantly greater gains in both reading vocabulary and comprehension than students in the two other settings and that their average levels of achievement in fifth grade were above the national norms, thus countering the fourth-grade slump. The results show that the students from a low-income large urban school had statically greater benefits from DI than from the other programs. Even though the DI-group started with lower scores on student achievement. The authors say that it is important to replicate these findings and especially to look at longer periods of time of student achievement. Adams, G.L. ''' Research on Direct Instruction: 25 Years Beyond DISTARAdams, G.L., Engelmann, S. (1996). Research on Direct Instruction: 25 years beyond DISTAR. Educational Assesment Systems is a response to the negative views on Direct Instruction, where they show the effectiveness of Direct Instruction and that it still holds since 1964. Engelmann and Adams conducted a meta-analysis of 34 controlled studies that looked at the effectiveness of the DI programs. The results are shown in figure 6. '''The American Federation of Teachers The American Federation of TeachersThe American Federation for Teachers (1999). Building on the best, learning from what works: five promising remedial reading intervention programs. Washington, DC. combined data for five promising programs for remedial reading intervention. For each program some characteristics are assessed, like the way they are implemented, costs and effect-size. The effect-size found for Direct Instruction ranges between 0.32-1.11. Early Steps shows an effect-size of 0.47 in the beginning and 0.65 a years later. Exemplary Center for Reading Instruction shows an effect-size of 1.21. Lindamood-Bell has promising results, but there is no data used or available to present an effect-size. Reading Recovery shows an effect-size from 0.57 to 0.78. Literature Overview Finding papers about Direct Instruction was definitely not a challenge. There has been so much research on the subject, since it was tested in 1964, that the challenge was more about finding our way through the jungle of literature. It was not only the amount of literature on DI that was challenging. We think that our case was not only about if DI had a positive effect on the achievement of students, but also about how good it is compared to other methods. In order to assess this we needed to find research that was not only focused on DI, but also examined other teaching methods. There is a lot of scientific research on teaching methods, partly because of the No Child Left Behind-act, but a lot of research is done with small data-sets. This is not what super crunching is about. Meta-analysis research can be considered a form of super crunching, because it uses very large data sets from different studies. According to the National Institute For Direct Instruction, six meta-analysis have examined Direct Instruction. Six researches compared to all the papers and books about Direct Instruction is not a lot, so super crunching cannot be considered common practice. We found that meta-analyses gave a good overall view of the performance of DI. However we also found problems with these kinds of researches. Meta-analyses combine studies on a certain subject to get overall results. The problems that come with this are straight-forward. The amount of data can be enormous. This means that there is usually no time to individually evaluate if the research was done properly or if the research is compatible. In meta-analysis the data is often treated as one huge pile, and different ages, backgrounds and competences of students are combined. This does not have to be a problem, but it should be monitored. Project follow through, that tested 17 teaching methods, was the start for many researches about teaching methods, including those about DI. DI came out as the winner in this research. Project Follow Through has been criticized for its research design. Because of this there has been many follow up researches to prove that DI does have a positive impact on student achievement. The literature on DI and other teaching methods report very positive results for DI. Judging from what we have seen, which is also what the book from Ayres (2007) reports, DI has proven to have a positive impact on students' achievement. Effect sizes differ in different studies, but overall the effect size seems to indicate that DI would be a good choice for a teaching method. There has been critique on DI. It would not teach children to solve problems or to be creative. The results say otherwise. The students taught with DI have a larger basic skill set and can apply this set to new situations. The book is very clear on this part. In our literature we have also found this. DI students are not only good in repeating what they have learned, but they overall perform well. However one of the articles we examined by Klahr and Nigam, the results show that many more children taught with direct instruction became masters in the poster-making compared to those taught with discovery learning. The results of the masters and none master students were somewhat higher for those who were taught with discovery learning, compared to those who were taught with direct instruction. The results are interesting. Another article we examined by Dean and Kuhn, reported that DI didn't do well at all. DI only performed well when it was coupled with regular practice (PR). The combination of DI and PR provided the highest results in the beginning, but later on PR was just as good (even slightly better), as DI+PR. As the book notes there has been a negative report about DI that it would increase anti-social behaviour. We examined this paper and were surprised to read that the authors actually state themselves that the finding are by no means definitive. Yet they are still treated as if they are. There has been plenty of critique: too small groups and the groups were not equal. This critique seems valid and no other research has been able to duplicate the results. Yet so many people are using this article as critique on DI. It is indeed a curious thing. Critique Ayres (2007) gives many examples of super crunching. He does that well and gives a convincing story why super crunching is successful and its opportunities should not be underestimated. However, there is a difference in seeing the DI story as an example to show the possibilities of super crunching and seeing it as an individual case. As an example of the possibilities of super crunching the story holds it own and does a good job of showing it to the reader. However when looking at the DI story as an individual case, corners are cut. Ayres (2007) shows that DI is a good teaching method that increases students' performance. Ayres (2007) stresses that DI performs better than conventional teaching methods. This is also what we find in the research. However, DI is not the only program that could replace conventional teaching methods. We found that there are teaching programs that perform as well, or even better, than DI. For example the study by Hattie (2009) and a research from the American Federation of Teachers (1999). The Follow Through research that started in 1964, showed that DI was the winner out of 17 teaching methods. Since that time there have been many follow up researches in which DI does not always win, even though DI does have a positive impact. It is also important to realize that things change. Since 1964 our schools have changed, students have changed, teachers have changed and teaching methods have changed or have been created. Ayres (2007) does not address this. As Hattie (2009) says, almost every teaching method works, but there are many who do not reach the threshold of an effect-size of 0.4. Even when this threshold is reached, choices have to be made about which teaching program schools want to use. Often the programs cannot be combined. This is definitely the case of DI, since it is a complete script that has to be followed. So as Hattie (2009) says, it's not so much about what teaching method works, it is about what works best. That what works best is very much a super crunching question. Combine all the data you have about different teaching methods and see which one has the biggest effect-size. This is done in the meta-analysis about DI and other teaching methods. In research that compares teaching methods, DI often performs well, but we haven't seen it perform the best out of all teaching methods available in more recent research. When talking about super crunching, what works best should not have been overlooked. Isn't it all about picking the best method, based on the results of the data available? DI does not seem to be the winner in this case and Ayres (2007) does not mention it, even though the data says so. Position on the Timeline of Ideas Project Follow Through started in 1964. DI won hands down out of the 17 teaching methods tested. However the research has been criticized and follow up research was conducted. With the vast amount of literature available on DI, that all report positive effects of DI on student performance, it is hard to argument that DI does not work. There has been critique on DI that it does not stimulate individual and creative thinking. Ayres (2007) says that standardized test have shown that DI students have a greater basic skill set that they can use for creative thinking. Teachers using DI have been interviewed about their views on the effects of DI. The teachers report that DI allowed for more creative thinking, because a framework was in place in which to innovate (Ayres, 2007). Schweinhart (1986) reports that even though DI has positive results on student achievement, it also increased anti-social behavior and criminal behavior. This report has been heavily criticized and no other researches have been able to get these results. Still Schweinhart's paper is often used to show why DI should not be used. The super crunching-way of looking at Direct Instruction or other teaching methods is by using meta-analysis. There have been six meta-analysis about Direct Instruction. Meta-analysis use other studies, so they are dependent on the amount of studies available. This also means that there is no use in having hundreds of meta-analysis, because they will also use the same data. Also meta-analysis often do not select the studies on quality or similarity of data. Even though the data says that Direct Instruction has positive results on students' achievement, the method is used very little in schools. First there are many teaching methods and it is not even clear if DI is the best (Hattie, 2009). Second there is still much resistance from teachers who do not like to follow a script. Third there is still critique on DI that it would not allow for individual and creative thinking. In order to tackle these problems and make sure that schools use the best teaching method, whether that is DI or another teach method, there should be more attention towards meta-analysis. In particular how to monitor if the meta-analysis is of good quality. There should also be emphasis on research that looks at indicators other than student achievement, like student's joy in learning. This kind of research might not be the most scientific research, but it might help with the resistance for new teaching methods. References Category:Browse